- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thomas Mansfield
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Thomas Mansfield ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable law firm. Very limited sources. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. PepperBeast (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Junk article that is fueled by primary sources, is promotional in tone, and contains no links to any other articles. Has a whopping eight edits in the past two years. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Previous instances were deleted after AfD decision in 2013, before the present instance was created by a WP:SPA. I have had a look for any sources to revise my "delete" opinion in the first AfD, but I am seeing no better than occasional items about research by the company and short articles by company employees, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing the evidence needed to overturn the previous consensus that the firm has not attained notability here. AllyD ( talk) 10:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thomas Mansfield
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Thomas Mansfield ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable law firm. Very limited sources. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. PepperBeast (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Junk article that is fueled by primary sources, is promotional in tone, and contains no links to any other articles. Has a whopping eight edits in the past two years. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Previous instances were deleted after AfD decision in 2013, before the present instance was created by a WP:SPA. I have had a look for any sources to revise my "delete" opinion in the first AfD, but I am seeing no better than occasional items about research by the company and short articles by company employees, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing the evidence needed to overturn the previous consensus that the firm has not attained notability here. AllyD ( talk) 10:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.